National Heritage Assets

Lord Luke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any jewellery is included in the list of heritage assets belonging to the nation; and whether it would be possible to compile a list of any such jewellery, together with its value and where it is held.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This information is not held centrally. The National Asset Register does not specify jewellery as a separate asset category. Departments maintain their own asset registers, including heritage assets, and they will be able to advise on their content.

Financial Services Authority

Baroness Goudie: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements are being made to appoint a new chairman of the Financial Services Authority.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Treasury is advertising this week for a new chairman of the FSA to succeed Sir Howard Davies.
	The chairman of the FSA is a critical appointment. The Treasury will be looking for an exceptional individual to lead the FSA in delivering its statutory objectives and a strong, fair and effective regulatory system in the UK.
	As the single financial services regulator in the UK, the scope and responsibilities of the FSA are considerable. The work of the FSA will increase significantly when it takes on responsibility for mortgages and general insurance conduct of business regulation in 2004–05. In light of this, it has been decided that the chairman should be supported by a separate chief executive.

Wrongful Rape Charges

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they have to compensate fully persons prosecuted and imprisoned for rape where the accused subsequently withdraws the allegation and the accused has been detained.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Her Majesty's Government have prepared under certain specified circumstances to pay compensation to those wrongfully convicted or charged with criminal offences such as rape. There are two schemes available. The statutory scheme (Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) complies with our international obligations (Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Public Rights). The terms of the ex-gratia scheme are as set out in the then Home Secretary's statement to the House of Common on 29 November 1985.
	While my right honourable friend the Home Secretary takes the final decision as to whether an applicant qualifies for payment, an independent assessor determines the amount of the award in all cases. The assessor (currently Lord Brennan) in considering claims applies principles analogous to those on which claims for damages arising from civil wrongs are settled.

Fylingdales Early Warning Radar

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will reply to the United States request to upgrade the early warning radar at RAF Fylingdales.

Baroness Crawley: My right honourable friend the Defence Secretary (Mr Hoon) informed the House on 17 December 2002 (Official Report cols. 45–7WS) in another place of the receipt of a request from the United States Government to upgrade the early warning radar at Fylingdales for missile defence purposes.
	The Government have encouraged parliamentary and public discussion of the issues involved. On 17 October, we informed the House of current work in the US on missile defence and on 9 December published a discussion paper inviting interested parties to contribute their views. We have received a large number of responses both from individuals and organisations, and we have considered all contributions carefully. My right honourable friend the Defence Secretary visited North Yorkshire to explain what the upgrade would involve and to hear at first hand the views of local people. We have engaged in initial discusions with the planning authorities. In a Statement on 15 January (Official Report, cols. 696–99) my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary informed the House in another place of the Government's preliminary conclusion that it was in the UK's interest to agree to the US request. He gave evidence to the Defence Select Committee on the same day and addressed points raised by honourable Members in the defence debate on 22 January in another place. We welcome the Select Committee's conclusion in its report published on 29 January that the UK should agree to the upgrade.
	In the course of these discussions we have been able to clarify that the upgrade essentially comprises computer hardware and software modification and involves no new development or change to the external appearance or power output of the radar; the radar will continue to fulfil its long-established ballistic missile early warning system (BMEWS) role; it will continue to be operated and staffed by the Royal Air Force, and we will continue to enjoy full access to its data; and the upgrade does not of itself commit the UK Government to any greater participation in the US missile defence programme. It does, however, keep open the prospect of acquiring missile defence capabilities for the UK should we desire such protection at some point in the future. We will continue discussions with the local planning authorities on the detail of the upgrade work.
	We are now satisfied that we have been able to take fully into account the views of all interested parties in coming to a decision. We are therefore today replying to the United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, conveying the Government's agreement to the US request. We are separately negotiating a technical memorandum of understanding to give British industry the best possible opportunities to win work on the US programme.

Fish Stocks: Exploitation

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Whitty on 20 January (WA 75), with respect to the outcome of the December meeting of the Fisheries Council of the European Union, what consideration was given to methods of conservation adopted in fishing areas worldwide which are comparable to the North Sea; to what extent such methods were adopted or rejected; and, if rejected, for what reasons.

Lord Whitty: On the basis of internationally agreed scientific principles, the same toolbox of methods is used worldwide to manage the level of exploitation of fish stocks. For example, limiting the catch, or the number and size of vessels and their fishing days, or mesh sizes, minimum sizes and various other gear restrictions. Closed seasons and areas may also help, but this depends on the biology of the fish. The EU management and stock recovery proposals for the North Sea all belong to this family of measures and are similar in concept to those that are applied in many other parts of the world. Successfully managing the international fisheries of the North Sea is particularly difficult, however, because of the numerous fishing nations and methods and the common occcurrence of migratory species of different sizes on the same grounds. Also, some key North Sea stocks have declined to such a low level that despite experiences elsewhere, there is no scientific precedent for reliably predicting how quickly and effectively they can recover, hence the harsh nature of the current scientific advice.

Game Licences

The Earl of Shrewsbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Answer by Lord Whitty on 23 January (HL Deb. col. 879) regarding game licences, how licences for taking and dealing in game:
	(a) discourage poaching;
	(b) encourage compliance with close seasons for the conservation of quarry species; and
	(c) protect food safety.

Lord Whitty: The legislation governing game licensing:
	(a) discourages poaching by, among other things, providing for the appointment of gamekeepers and making it an offence to trespass on land in search or pursuit of game;
	(b) encourages compliance with close seasons by making it unlawful to kill or take game bids and animals outside certain dates;
	(c) protects food safety by providing that no one may lawfully sell or buy game unless they are licensed to do so; and prohibiting the sale of game birds at certain times outside the season when they may be killed.

SSSIs

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affair's autumn performance report 2002, what steps are being taken to improve the number of sites of special scientific interest in English Nature's control that are failing the public service agreement target; what steps are being taken to improve the areas of sites of special scientific interest under the control of the Ministry of Defence that are failing the public service agreement target; and how soon the hitherto unassessed areas of Crown land will be assessed.

Lord Whitty: The Government are committed to their public service agreement target of bringing 95 per cent of sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) in England into favourable condition by 2010. Some public bodies, as major landowners of SSSIs, are important partners in achieving this target. Public bodies have a duty under Section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This requires them to "take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of the authority's functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest". By the end of March 2003, the condition of all SSSI land in England, including that owned by the Crown, will have been assessed by English Nature.
	English Nature is directly responsible for 62,000 ha of SSSIs, as owners and managers of a large proportion of national nature reserves (NNRs). Seventy per cent of this area is currently on target. By March 2004, English Nature is committed to increasing this percentage to 80 per cent, and 90 per cent by 2006. Within the NNR management budget, money is specifically targeted at recovery projects to achieve improved condition in NNRs currently failing the PSA target. Through this, for example, fen restoration work has been funded this financial year at Bure Marshes NNR in Norfolk, and next year peat bog restoration work will be funded at Roudsea Woods and Mosses NNR in Cumbria. In 2003–04 over £- million will be spent on recovery projects in NNRs.
	The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is committed to protecting and enhancing SSSIs under its control and is currently working closely with English Nature to review factors affecting MoD SSSIs and to develop an action plan for consideration by the Minister's Environment and Conservation Advisory Group (MECAG) to meet the PSA target. This approach is supported by the joint declaration of intent between the MoD and English Nature signed in July 2002. Action has already taken place to address unfavourable condition on many sites. In the last year, for example, the MoD has been a proactive partner in the EU Life partnership on Salisbury Plain, improving the condition of chalk grasslands, and the Heritage Lottery's Fund Tomorrow's Heathland Heritage, which has enabled improvements to be made to many heathland MoD SSSIs in Hampshire, Dorset and Berkshire. Locally, the MoD has over 120 conservation groups covering the defence estate where statutory bodies such as English Nature, and non governmental organisations such as the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts are standing members. Many projects to improve the condition of SSSIs are carried out under the direction of these groups with funding from the establishment budgets or from the rural elements of the estate strategy (REES) project.
	Defra and English Nature will continue to work closely with the wide range of organisations that can contribute to achieving the PSA target over the period from now to 2010 and beyond.

Defra: Advertising Standards Agency

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has contacted the Advertising Standards Authority within the past 12 months; and, if so, when and on what issues.

Lord Whitty: Approaches to and correspondence with the Advertising Standards Authority would be conducted on behalf of Defra by its Communications Directorate and no such approaches have been made or correspondence taken place over the past 12 months.

Grey Squirrels

Lord Inglewood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to continue research into the feasibility of using contraception to control grey squirrels now that the Forestry Commission and its research partners have discontinued their work in this area.

Lord Whitty: The grey squirrel is a long-established invasive non-native species which has impacted significantly on native wildlife and also causes significant economic damage. Article 8(h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity places obligations on contracting parties to take action in respect of invasive non-native species.
	Research was undertaken into the feasibility of using contraception to control the impact of grey squirrels, with input from the Forestry Commission and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, but this was discontinued in 2002 when the results failed to give the partners any promise of a practical application in a reasonable time-frame. Although laboratory trials of the technique had proved encouraging, enclosure and field trials were inconclusive and highlighted the enormous difficulties of putting such a method into practice.
	Further research on contraceptive vaccines is likely to be extremely costly and the Government have no plans to continue it at present. Nevertheless, we retain a strong interest in non-lethal and humane measures for controlling populations of wild animals that cause problems. Government scientists will keep a technology watch on developments that might offer innovative techniques of wildlife management. Departments and agencies involved in wildlife management and woodland protection have to weigh priorities very carefully among the many calls on their research budgets.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Compensation

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to their response to the reports of the foot and mouth disease inquiries (CM5637), what progress has been made on the consultation into rationalised compensation proposals.

Lord Whitty: The arrangements for compensation for different animal diseases have been brought into effect on a case-by-case basis. Inevitably the overall approach has become fragmented and inconsistent. The Government therefore plan to consult on a rationalisation of compensation arrangements for animal diseases in the early summer.
	Officials are currently examining options for simplified legislation that sets out a single compensation mechanism that can be applied to all notifiable animal diseases. Consideration is being given to how livestock market prices can be used to calculate transparently a national average market price for different categories of livestock.

Insurance against Exotic Diseases

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there is any European Union legislation disallowing claims raised as a result of government legislation and action which will prevent farmers from insuring their businesses against exotic diseases.

Lord Whitty: We are not aware of European legislation which would prevent farmers from making insurance claims for losses arising out of government measures to control exotic diseases, nor are we aware of any European action to prevent farmers from taking out such insurance.

Sheep: Ruminal Bolus

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many instances of reticulitis in lambs have been found due to the presence in the reticulum of a bolus used for the identification after sheep genotyping.

Lord Whitty: More than 330,000 sheep have so far been genotyped under the National Scrapie Plan for Great Britain and have been identified by ruminal bolus. One case of reticulitis has been attributed to the presence of the ruminal bolus. The ram lamb in question made a full recovery following surgery.

Sheep: Ruminal Bolus

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many sheep have died due to the insertion of a bolus used for identification after sheep genotyping.

Lord Whitty: Under the National Scrapie Plan for Great Britain over 330,000 sheep have so far been genotyped and identified by the use of a bolus. A total of 69 sheep have died, or have been humanely destroyed, following administration of ruminal boluses. Compensation to the full value of the sheep is paid to the owner in all such cases. The Government also bear the costs incurred in determining the cause of death where this might be attributable to the administration of the bolus.

Higher Education: Disabled and Ethnic Minority Students

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have evidence of the extent to which (a) disabled students and (b) students from ethnic minority groups face barriers in their access to opportunities for higher education; and if so, whether they will publish evidence.
	What barriers are faced (a) by disabled students and (b) by students from ethnic minority groups in their access to opportunities for higher education.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Ethnic minorities as a whole are well represented in higher education in the United Kingdom but there are some pockets of under-representation. We have commissioned a study to examine the experiences of ethnic minority students which will identify and assess the factors which affect participation, student achievement and transition into the labour market. The Higher Education Funding Council for England and universities and colleges admissions services are also looking to see whether data can be extracted to test whether there are any issues around universities' admissions in respect of ethnicity.
	The Higher Education Funding Council for England announced in December 2002 the introduction of a new performance indicator for access of disabled students to higher education institutions based on the percentage of students who are in receipt of the disabled students' allowance.

Male Teachers

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action is being taken by the Teacher Training Agency to increase substantially the number of male teachers in state primary and secondary schools.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The Teacher Training Agency is using a range of strategies to promote the recruitment of men to teaching, especially to the primary schools sector, where they remain most acutely under-represented. In addition to its main Those who can, teach campaign, the agency discusses and disseminates approaches to the recruitment of men to teaching at twice-yearly conferences with teacher training providers. Men who contact the agency's information line are sent direct marketing material illustrating, through the use of case studies, the challenges and rewards which male teachers have found teaching in primary and secondary schools. The agency also makes male teaching advocates available for recruitment events and for one-to-one telephone discussions with men interested in applying to teach.
	The number of men training as primary school teachers in England has risen from 1,589 in 2001–02 to 1,717 in 2002–03 and as secondary school teachers from 5,483 to 5,851.

Licensing Bill: Use Classes Order

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will announce how they intend to proceed on the Use Classes Order before the Licensing Bill begins its Report stage in the House of Lords, and whether they will make nightclubs a sui generis use before the Bill comes into effect.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering the responses to the consultation paper on possible options for change to the current Use Classes Order provisions and will make an announcement about how we intend to proceed as soon as possible.

Planning Delivery Grant

Baroness Goudie: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are now in a position to announce the details of the Planning Delivery Grant for 2003–04 [HL1586].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Yes. As the noble Baroness knows, the Deputy Prime Minister announced last July that we would be making an additional £350 million available to local authorities over the period 2003–06 to improve the delivery of planning services. We have now decided the basis on which we will distribute this new Planning Delivery Grant in 2003–04 and will be informing recipients of their allocations.
	The grant is being paid out of additional resources from Spending Review 2002. The aim of the grant is to improve the planning system to ensure the effective delivery of our objectives for sustainable communities which we set out in the document Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future. It is specifically targeted towards meeting the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Public Service Agreements 5 and 6. PSA 5 aims to achieve a better balance between housing availability and demand. PSA 6 requires all authorities to have local development frameworks in place (in accordance with agreed local development schemes) and to meet the best value development control targets by the end of 2006–07.
	The amount of grant distributed in 2003–04 is £50 million. It will be paid to local planning authorities, regional planning bodies and the Greater London Authority. The grant is a performance reward grant and rewards local authorities both for improvements towards and achievement of best value development control targets in the period June 2001 to June 2002. Those meeting the development control handling targets both at the start and the end of the year are rewarded separately for consistently high performance. No authority will receive an allocation of less than £75,000 in 2003–04 so that every authority has additional resources to help drive improvement in performance towards the targets. The grant allocations are enhanced for those local authorities within the high housing demand and growth areas identified in the document Sustainable Communities: Building for the future.
	Regional planning bodies were notified in December of their share of the £6 million of existing funding which will, from 2003–04, be paid directly to them. They will also receive a share of the new planning delivery grant for their work on new regional spatial strategies (due to replace regional planning guidance under the Bill) and their review of existing regional planning guidance to take account of the growth area proposals. The Greater London Authority receives grant to assist its related review of elements of the London Plan.
	County councils will not receive direct resources from the grant. The counties' planning functions are being changed under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill currently before Parliament. Subject to Royal Assent, county councils will cease to have a duty to prepare structure plans but their resources will not be reduced accordingly. Therefore, while in some cases counties may need to continue with structure plan preparation over the next year and possibly beyond, given the transitional period set out in the Bill, as this function winds down they will be able to take advantage of freed up resources. It will be important that these freed up resources and the expertise available in county councils are retained and used to deliver other county planning responsibilities and to undertake their function as statutory consultees in the preparation of regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks. Counties can be engaged to conduct work related to regional spatial strategies on an agency basis.
	The criteria for grant allocations have been designed to drive up performance in the delivery of planning functions, both in respect of development control and plan making. Authorities should be aware that they will need to continue to secure improvements in performance in order to receive money in further years. Grant allocations are not ring-fenced and authorities have complete discretion in the way they spend this money. Areas that authorities may consider concentrating on include: contribution to the preparation of regional planning guidance and the future regional spatial strategies; completing current reviews of existing development plans and preparing for the new system of local development frameworks; better resourcing of IT systems; assistance from consultants; outsourcing of certain planning services; increasing staffing levels; training for staff and councillors; supporting mediation services; encouraging a more diverse planning workforce; bursaries for employees to gain planning qualifications and more use of technical staff.
	The amounts payable are shown in the tables below.
	Letters to all leaders of local and county planning authorities, chief executives of the regional planning bodies and the Mayor of London have been laid in the Libraries of the House. They set out the details of each recipient's grant.
	We will be laying a special grant report before the other place shortly.
	
		Table 1: Total Planning Delivery Grant (£) for 2003–04
		
			  £ 
			 Adur 138,189 
			 Allerdale 151,179 
			 Alnwick 75,000 
			 Amber Valley 75,000 
			 Arun 137,500 
			 Ashfield 181,650 
			 Ashford 163,816 
			 Aylesbury Vale 203,206 
			 Babergh 75,000 
			 Barking and Dagenham 150,758 
			 Barnet 458,095 
			 Barnsley 75,000 
			 Barrow-in-Furness 75,000 
			 Basildon 208,346 
			 Basingstoke and Deane 203,463 
			 Bassetlaw 75,000 
			 Bath and North East Somerset UA 133,008 
			 Bedford 203,206 
			 Berwick-upon-Tweed 75,000 
			 Bexley 236,793 
			 Birmingham 75,000 
			 Blaby 75,000 
			 Blackburn with Darwen UA 75,000 
			 Blackpool UA 75,000 
			 Blyth Valley 75,000 
			 Bolsover 75,000 
			 Bolton 75,000 
			 Boston 75,000 
			 Bournemouth UA 157,781 
			 Bracknell Forest UA 121,875 
			 Bradford 75,000 
			 Braintree 275,158 
			 Breckland 88,297 
			 Brent 283,364 
			 Brentwood 108,480 
			 Bridgnorth 75,000 
			 Brighton and Hove UA 121,875 
			 Bristol UA 189,258 
			 Broadland 75,000 
			 Broads Authority 75,000 
			 Bromley 241,106 
			 Bromsgrove 189,943 
			 Broxbourne 101,316 
			 Broxtowe 75,000 
			 Burnley 75,000 
			 Bury 125,400 
			 Calderdale 75,400 
			 Cambridge 101,316 
			 Camden 223,407 
			 Cannock Chase 75,000 
			 Canterbury 200,070 
			 Caradon 75,000 
			 Carlisle 75,000 
			 Carrick 97,304 
			 Castle Morpeth 75,000 
			 Castle Point 158,757 
			 Charnwood 94,248 
			 Chelmsford 137,500 
			 Cheltenham 75,000 
			 Cherwell 278,812 
			 Chester 75,000 
			 Chesterfield 75,000 
			 Chester-le-Street 75,000 
			 Chichester 336,900 
			 Chiltern 249,282 
			 Chorley 75,000 
			 Christchurch 75,814 
			 City of London 75,000 
			 Colchester 137,500 
			 Congleton 75,000 
			 Copeland 129,735 
			 Corby 115,100 
			 Cotswold 232,085 
			 Coventry 75,000 
			 Craven 100,555 
			 Crawley 109,091 
			 Crewe and Nantwich 75,000 
			 Croydon 219,955 
			 Dacorum 229,265 
			 Darlington UA 89,770 
			 Dartford 148,191 
			 Dartmoor NP 75,000 
			 Daventry 101,316 
			 Derby UA 134,206 
			 Derbyshire Dales 75,000 
			 Derwentside 75,000 
			 Doncaster 111,189 
			 Dover 109,091 
			 Dudley 207,414 
			 Durham 83,569 
			 Ealing 121,875 
			 Easington 75,000 
			 East Cambridgeshire 126,617 
			 East Devon 75,000 
			 East Dorset 75,000 
			 East Hampshire 272,875 
			 East Hertfordshire 163,542 
			 East Lindsey 75,000 
			 East Northamptonshire 107,684 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire UA 213,853 
			 East Staffordshire 75,000 
			 Eastbourne 109,091 
			 Eastleigh 173,009 
			 Eden 207,267 
			 Ellesmere Port and Neston 75,000 
			 Elmbridge 254,351 
			 Enfield 186,316 
			 Epping Forest 199,600 
			 Epsom and Ewell 75,000 
			 Erewash 82,836 
			 Exeter 100,000 
			 Exmoor NP 75,000 
			 Fareham 132,211 
			 Fenland 113,199 
			 Forest Heath 75,000 
			 Forest of Dean 75,000 
			 Fylde 75,000 
			 Gateshead 201,962 
			 Gedling 75,000 
			 Gloucester 75,000 
			 Gosport 75,000 
			 Gravesham 124,878 
			 Great Yarmouth 75,000 
			 Greenwich 200,000 
			 Guildford 75,000 
			 Hackney 121,875 
			 Halton UA 160,000 
			 Hambleton 147,416 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 157,020 
			 Harborough 214,061 
			 Haringey 255,952 
			 Harlow 181,028 
			 Harrowgate 75,000 
			 Harrow 251,783 
			 Hart 109,091 
			 Hartlepool UA 150,460 
			 Hastings 146,840 
			 Havant 75,000 
			 Havering 171,591 
			 Herefordshire UA 326,145 
			 Hertsmere 75,000 
			 High Peak 75,000 
			 Hillingdon 320,040 
			 Hinckley and Bosworth 75,000 
			 Horsham 177,256 
			 Hounslow 404,246 
			 Huntingdonshire 141,866 
			 Hyndburn 97,980 
			 Ipswich 75,000 
			 Isle of Wight UA 166,588 
			 Isles of Scilly 101,965 
			 Islington 237,532 
			 Kennet 75,000 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 178,865 
			 Kerrier 75,000 
			 Kettering 136,309 
			 King's Lynn and West Norfolk 75,000 
			 Kingston upon Thames 195,300 
			 Kingston-upon-Hull UA 109,981 
			 Kirklees 75,000 
			 Knowsley 165,505 
			 Lake District NP 75,000 
			 Lambeth 330,617 
			 Lancaster 75,000 
			 Leeds 75,000 
			 Leicester UA 119,296 
			 Lewes 75,000 
			 Lewisham 184,375 
			 Lichfield 111,461 
			 Lincoln 104,952 
			 Liverpool 250,982 
			 Luton UA 203,267 
			 Macclesfield 288,603 
			 Maidstone 280,076 
			 Maldon 75,000 
			 Malvern Hills 75,000 
			 Manchester 251,537 
			 Mansfield 85,963 
			 Medway UA 264,462 
			 Melton 138,634 
			 Mendip 75,000 
			 Merton 195,450 
			 Mid Bedfordshire 187,855 
			 Mid Devon 140,627 
			 Mid Suffolk 75,000 
			 Mid Sussex 132,681 
			 Middlesbrough UA 158,038 
			 Milton Keynes UA 348,120 
			 Mole Valley 75,000 
			 New Forest 109,091 
			 Newark and Sherwood 77,253 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 75,000 
			 Newcastle-under-Lyme 164,755 
			 Newham 201,503 
			 North Cornwall 106,149 
			 North Devon 148,241 
			 North Dorset 138,788 
			 North East Derbyshire 112,340 
			 North East Lincolnshire UA 75,000 
			 North Hertfordshire 148,191 
			 North Kesteven 75,000 
			 North Lincolnshire UA 99,889 
			 North Norfolk 75,000 
			 North Shropshire 75,000 
			 North Somerset UA 75,000 
			 North Tyneside 75,000 
			 North Warwickshire 75,313 
			 North West Leicestershire 75,000 
			 North Wiltshire 123,305 
			 North Yorkshire Moors NP 75,000 
			 Northampton 169,285 
			 Northumberland NP 75,000 
			 Norwich 75,000 
			 Nottingham UA 75,000 
			 Nuneaton and Bedworth 75,000 
			 Oadby and Wigston 75,000 
			 Oldham 75,000 
			 Owestry 75,000 
			 Oxford 174,294 
			 Peak NP 75,000 
			 Pendle 75,000 
			 Penwith 75,000 
			 Peterborough UA 77,843 
			 Plymouth UA 75,000 
			 Poole UA 182,279 
			 Portsmouth UA 137,500 
			 Preston 122,151 
			 Purbeck 75,000 
			 Reading UA 203,648 
			 Redbridge 197,789 
			 Redcar and Cleveland UA 75,000 
			 Redditch 75,000 
			 Reigate and Banstead 109,091 
			 Restormel 191,936 
			 Ribble Valley 75,000 
			 Richmondshire 87,304 
			 Richmond-upon-Thames 299,968 
			 Rochdale 115,401 
			 Rochford 156,036 
			 Rossendale 75,000 
			 Rother 75,000 
			 Rotherham 188,698 
			 Rugby 75,000 
			 Runnymede 139,569 
			 Rushcliffe 75,000 
			 Rushmoor 85,695 
			 Rutland UA 99,039 
			 Ryedale 75,000 
			 Salford 75,000 
			 Salisbury 109,688 
			 Sandwell 75,000 
			 Scarborough 75,000 
			 Sedgefield 103,484 
			 Sedgemoor 75,000 
			 Sefton 286,592 
			 Selby 101,549 
			 Sevenoaks 108,508 
			 Sheffield 75,000 
			 Shepway 109,091 
			 Shrewsbury and Atcham 75,000 
			 Slough UA 166,681 
			 Solihull 75,000 
			 South Bedfordshire 135,407 
			 South Buckinghamshire 75,000 
			 South Cambridgeshire 116,667 
			 South Derbyshire 75,000 
			 South Gloucestershire UA 153,702 
			 South Hampshire 75,000 
			 South Holland 75,000 
			 South Kesteven 112,488 
			 South Lakeland 75,000 
			 South Norfolk 75,000 
			 South Northamptonshire 186,876 
			 South Oxfordshire 137,500 
			 South Ribble 75,000 
			 South Shropshire 115,864 
			 South Somerset 140,728 
			 South Staffordshire 75,000 
			 South Tyneside 85,254 
			 Southampton UA 124,029 
			 Southend on Sea UA 116,667 
			 Southwark 225,790 
			 Spelthorne 75,926 
			 St Albans 109,091 
			 St Edmundsbury 79,076 
			 St Helens 75,000 
			 Stafford 165,858 
			 Staffordshire Moorlands 75,000 
			 Stevenage 75,000 
			 Stockport 294,100 
			 Stockton-on-Tees UA 75,000 
			 Stoke on Trent UA 99,461 
			 Stratford-on-Avon 118,587 
			 Stroud 75,000 
			 Suffolk Coastal 75,000 
			 Sunderland 110,170 
			 Surrey Heath 167,324 
			 Sutton 109,091 
			 Swale 179,167 
			 Swindon UA 75,000 
			 Tameside 75,000 
			 Tamworth 100,000 
			 Tandridge 266,668 
			 Taunton Deane 75,000 
			 Teesdale 75,000 
			 Teignbridge 156,222 
			 Telford and Wrekin UA 75,000 
			 Tendring 253,159 
			 Test Valley 295,525 
			 Tewkesbury 125,675 
			 Thanet 118,945 
			 Three Rivers 106,503 
			 Thurrock UA 179,167 
			 Tonbridge and Malling 109,091 
			 Torbay UA 75,000 
			 Torridge 75,000 
			 Tower Hamlets 224,039 
			 Trafford 238,831 
			 Tunbridge Wells 75,000 
			 Tynedale 75,000 
			 Uttlesford 246,201 
			 Vale of White Horse 128,821 
			 Vale Royal 225,115 
			 Wakefield 75,000 
			 Walsall 100,199 
			 Waltham Forest 109,091 
			 Wandsworth 246,513 
			 Wansbeck 75,000 
			 Warrington UA 75,000 
			 Warwick 75,000 
			 Watford 75,000 
			 Waveney 75,000 
			 Waverley 75,000 
			 Wealden 192,964 
			 Wear Valley 75,000 
			 Wellingborough 108,383 
			 Welwyn Hatfield 75,000 
			 West Berkshire UA 268,281 
			 West Devon 77,159 
			 West Dorset 75,000 
			 West Lancashire 75,000 
			 West Lindsey 75,000 
			 West Oxfordshire 121,875 
			 West Somerset 75,000 
			 West Wiltshire 75.000 
			 Westminster 474,679 
			 Weymouth and Portland 75,000 
			 Wigan 210,441 
			 Winchester 297,062 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead UA 227,499 
			 Wirral 267,697 
			 Woking 166,989 
			 Wokingham UA 170,019 
			 Wolverhampton 120,263 
			 Worcester 75,000 
			 Worthing 219,977 
			 Wychavon 254,927 
			 Wycombe 109,091 
			 Wyre 108,801 
			 Wyre Forest 108,105 
			 York UA 75,000 
			 Yorkshire Dales NP 75,000 
		
	
	
		Table 2: Planning Delivery Grant for Regional Planning Bodies and the GLA for 2003–04
		
			  £ 
			 East Midlands Region Local Government Association 365,000 
			 East of England Local Government Conference 516,000 
			 Greater London Authority 75,000 
			 Regional Assembly for the North East 263,000 
			 North West Regional Assembly 369,000 
			 South East Regional Assembly 581,000 
			 South West Regional Assembly 324,000 
			 West Midlands Local Government Association 332,000 
			 Regional Assembly for Yorkshire and the Humber 325,000

Road Gritting

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce legislation requiring local authorities in England and Wales to grit the road promptly where adverse weather conditions so require; and, if not, why not.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: We shall introduce a duty for a highway authority to remove ice when a suitable legislative opportunity presents itself.

Honduras: Child Protection

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are discussing issues of child protection with the Government of Honduras; and, if not, whether they will raise the killing of many young people in the past five years.

Baroness Amos: The Government fully share concerns about the plight of street children in Honduras. The rights of children worldwide are a central part of our human rights policy. We maintain a constant dialogue with the Honduran authorities on this issue, as does the EU.
	The UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights produced a report on Honduras which paid particular attention to street children. Together with EU partners we have raised the UN report and our serious concerns about child protection with the Honduran Government and have pressed for further action. President Maduro has announced a programme of action: we are monitoring this closely.

Criminal Justice System

Lord Windlesham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which of the main recommendations made in the review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales by Lord Justice Auld, and of the sentencing framework by John Halliday, have been incorporated in the criminal justice legislation currently before Parliament or in administrative action.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: As this Question covers the work of all three criminal justice departments, I am answering on behalf of my department, the Home Office, and the Law Officers' Department.
	Following extensive consultation with those connected with the criminal justice system and members of the public, in July 2002 the Government published their response to the Auld and Halliday reports in the White Paper, Justice for All, accompanied by an annex, Justice for All—Responses to the Auld and Halliday Reports. The position set out there remains the Government's position for modernising the criminal justice system over the coming years.
	The Government's immediate programme for reform is clearly reflected in the Criminal Justice Bill and the Courts Bill, both currently going through Parliament. In parallel, we are implementing a number of administrative programmes across the three criminal justice departments. The main parts of the programme are as follows:
	Implementation of many of the 55 recommendations in the Halliday Report for review of the sentencing framework for England and Wales: most require legislation and are being taken forward in the Criminal Justice Bill. They include a new sentencing framework, a single generic community sentence, heavier sentences for persistent offending, reforming short custodial sentences, changes to the calculation of remand time, sentencers giving reasons for passing a sentence, licence conditions lasting until the endpoint of sentence, administrative recall to prison, creation of the sentencing guidelines council, and many more.
	Activity relating to a handful of other Halliday recommendations which do not require legislation, including: ongoing research into the effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of community and custodial sentences; looking into how best to increase public knowledge about sentencing; an accommodation strategy review being undertaken by the National Probation Service (work has begun on two pilots for intermittent custody); improving pre-sentence reports by introducing a research based offender assessment system (OASys); and the setting up of a Home Office implementation team for the new sentencing framework.
	Reform of criminal evidence and procedures, reflecting the main recommendations of the Auld report: most of these are included in the Criminal Justice Bill and the Courts Bill. The Criminal Justice Bill includes reforms in eligibility for jury service, trial by judge alone, changes in appeal procedures, giving the police some responsibility for charging, changes in the rules for bail, changes in rules of evidence, and many more.
	The establishment of a National Criminal Justice Board, administratively, to replace all the existing national planning and operational bodies, reflecting other Auld recommendations. We have already simplified and strengthened the present machinery. The Prime Minister established a Criminal Justice System Cabinet Committee to oversee delivery of the Government's policies for the management and reform of the criminal justice system. This is supported by the National Criminal Justice Board, which includes representatives of all the criminal justice agencies, the police, judiciary and CJS Ministers. Local criminal justice boards are up and running in shadow form and are on target to go live in April 2003.
	Legislation to give effect to the Auld recommendations for unified administration of the courts and for court security is being taken forward in the Courts Bill. A programme to create the new agency has been established. Implementation is not expected before April 2005.
	While the Government have not pursued the Auld recommendations for a unified criminal court, we are effecting closer integration between magistrates' courts and the Crown Court through a package of measures in the Courts Bill. These will bring about the same benefits identified by the relevant Auld recommendations.
	Creation of a Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, taking forward the Auld recommendations, is included in the Courts Bill and administrative arrangements to set up a full time secretariat are in hand.
	The trilateral case preparation project to tackle the effectiveness of preparation and progression of cases in all criminal courts from charge to disposal. Many of the proposals reflect Sir Robin Auld's recommendations and are being taken forward administratively. Pilots are to be launched in the spring.
	Judicial personnel issues reflected in the Auld recommendations are being mainly taken forward administratively. They include a national recruitment strategy for lay magistrates to make the Bench more representative of the community it serves (a project board is being set up to take this forward and the strategy will be published shortly); plans to give the Judicial Studies Board a stronger role in magistrates' training (the Courts Bill will result in responsibility for their training reverting to the Lord Chancellor); and setting up judicial appraisal schemes in addition to those in place.
	We have not taken up Sir Robin Auld's proposal that we build a new integrated IT system but are pursuing an alternative approach that reflects the same objectives and advantages of integration. We are implementing over the next three years a major IT and business change programme for which £834 million new money has been provided in our SR2002 settlement. Our approach will join together the existing and developing IT systems in a staged development, using an information walkway to link individual systems. This alternative is consistent with our approach to large IT programmes, as set out in the Cabinet Office report Successful IT—Modernising Government in Action. This report strongly recommends a modular and evolutionary rather than a big bang approach to IT systems development and integration. Our approach will make sure that money already invested in IT systems will not go to waste and offers the best balance of benefit, cost and risk avoidance.
	Cross-references of this reform programme to specific Auld and Halliday recommendations are contained in the table below.
	
		A. Main Halliday Recommendations Taken Forward
		
			 Number Description 
			  (i) In the Criminal Justice Bill 
			 1 New sentencing framework 
			 4 Heavier sentences for persistant offending 
			 9 Sentences Guideline Council 
			 13 Sentences giving reasons for passing a sentence 
			 18 Reforming short custodial sentences 
			 19 Licence conditions lasting to the endpoint of sentence 
			 27 Single generic community sentence 
			 34 Changes to the calculation of remand time 
			 37 Administrative recall to prison 
			   
			  (ii) Under Administrative Action 
			 14 Increasing public knowledge about sentencing 
			 23 Review of the intermediate estate: Accommodation Strategy Review 
			 33 Improving pre-sentence reports 
			 47 Further research into the effectiveness and cost benefit analysis of community and custodial sentences 
			 52 Setting up of an implementation team for the new sentencing framework 
		
	
	
		B. Main Auld Recommendations Taken Forward
		
			 Number Description 
			  (i) In the Criminal Justice Bill 
			  Reform of criminal evidence 
			 19–22 Eligibility for jury service 
			 31, 37, 39 Trial by judge alone 
			 40 Changes in appeal procedures 
			 154–156 Giving the police responsibility for charging 
			 178–185 Changes in the rules for bail 
			 Various, mainly out of 254–275 Changes in rules of evidence 
			   
			  (ii) In the Courts Bill 
			   Court Reform 
			 3 Working patterns of magistrates 
			 83* Unified Criminal Court: *Rejected, but benefits being achieved through package of measures in the Courts Bill 
			 100 (linked to 97, 99, 101–103)¡ Unified administration of the Courts: ¡Structural changes that will flow from creation of the new agency 
			 115–116 Court security 
			 105.5 Appointment of a senior district judge 
			 120 Creation of inspectors of court administration 
			 219 Power to make rulings at pre-trial hearings 
			 228.2, 233 (linked to 234, 293)¡¡ Creation of Criminal Procedure Rule Committee ¡¡Administrative action, including to set up a full time secretariat 
			 312 Appeals to Court of Appeal (procedural directions) 
			 328 Prosecution apeals form Court of Appeal 
			   
			  (iii) Under Administrative Action 
			  (a) Planning and 'Operational' Bodies 
			 121–122, 125–130, 132–135 Replacement of all existing national planning and operational bodies with a National Criminal Justice Board. Creation by the Prime Minister of a CJS Cabinet Committee. Local Criminal Justice Boards. 
			   
			  (b) Case Preparation Project 
			 7 Case management responsibilities of justices' clerks 
			 71.1 Case management by judges 
			 153 Fee structures to support case preparation 
			 210–221 Pre-trial hearings and pre-trial assessments 
			 222–223 Listing of cases 
			 235.1–4,  
			 236–8, Trial procedures 
			 240–5,  
			 247–8  
			 271–272 Pre-trial liaison between experts 
			 282–285 Interpreters 
			   
			  (c) Judicial Personnel Issues 
			 8 National recruitment strategy and a more representative bench for lay justices 
			 11 Judicial studies board to be responsible for training lay magistrates 
			 80–82 Appraisal scheme for all part-time/full time judicial appointments and those advising the Lord Chancellor on judicial appointments 
			   
			  (d) IT Integration 
			 113** New Integrated IT System **Rejected, but the same objectives and advantages of integration are to be gained from the major IT and business change programme that the Government are implementing under an alternative approach, and for which £834 million new money has been provided in our SR2002 settlement. Our approach will join together the existing IT systems in a staged development, using an information walkway to link individual systems.

Queen's Counsel

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Chancellor on 22 January (WA 97), whether by parity of reasoning the system of appointment of Queen's Counsel should be extended, in the interests of consumers, to the appointment of junior counsel; and, if not, why not.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: If the noble Lord is referring to admission to the Bar, then this process is already managed excellently by the profession itself. Governmental involvement would not only be inappropriate, as with entry to any independent profession, but would provide no added benefit to consumers. My role in the appointment of Queen's Counsel, however, is justified because it helps consumers make the best use of the advocacy services available to them. It provides a quality mark which distinguishes those barristers or solicitor advocates who possess outstanding advocacy, legal and professional skills and are specialists in their chosen field.
	If the noble Lord is instead referring to the appointment of junior counsel to act on behalf of the Government, then such a system already exists. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General appoints two First Junior Treasury Counsels (one Common Law and one Chancery) and four panels of junior counsel to advise and represent the Government in civil cases and seven junior Treasury Counsel to do likewise in criminal cases.

Imprints of Election Leaflets

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress is being made on the introduction of new regulations for imprints on election leaflets; and what is the timetable for their introduction.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government are currently considering the views of both the Electoral Commission and the political parties on this issue. No decision has yet been taken on when the regulations will be made. It is, however, not practical to introduce the new provisions before the local elections this May.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made on the Watchkeeper project on the unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicle.

Lord Bach: The new chapter to the Strategic Defence Review set out the potential for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) significantly to improve operational effectiveness. UAVs will be a key contributor to network enabled capability and their ability to provide persistent surveillance of the battlefield or theatre of operations, without putting aircrew lives at risk has been demonstrated recently by the US in Afghanistan.
	The central element of the UK's current plans for acquiring UAVs is the Watchkeeper programme, which will provide UK commanders with accurate, timely and high quality imagery. Watchkeeper will be an advanced system integrating air vehicles, sensor payloads and ground control facilities. It will be joined to the wider command and control network through communication systems such as Bowman, allowing information to be passed quickly, providing commanders with an improved understanding of the battle space and ensuring that military effect can more rapidly be brought to bear.
	Four companies were invited to undertake the first stage of the assessment phase and to propose tenders for the second stage. All four submitted strong bids that demonstrated a good understanding of the programme requirements, the technical complexities and the project management requirements. Following detailed consideration of the proposals, on the basis of value for money and demonstration of the potential to deliver the best capability, we have today selected Northrop Grumman ISS International and Thales UK to take forward the remainder of the assessment phase. The Northrup Grumman team includes BAE Systems, Detica Limited, General Dynamics UK Limited, STAYSYS Limited and Ultra Electronics Limited. Thales (UK)'s team includes Aerosystems International, Elbit Systems Limited and QinetiQ.
	Both selected bidders have indicated that they intend to complete the bulk of work in the UK, although it is too early at this stage to be precise regarding the full extent of the industrial benefits to the UK. These will be explored further in the remainder of the assessment phase, which will culminate by mid-2004 in the selection of a single successful contractor for the demonstration and manufacture phase. As stated in the SDR New Chapter, we remain committed to accelerating the Watchkeeper programe and an initial capability is planned for early 2006.
	The Watchkeeper programme will be complemented by our plans to establish in 2003 a joint service UAV experimentation programme (JUEP). The JUEP will examine the potential of UAVs beyond the bounds of the Watchkeeper programme by enabling personnel of all three services to gain experience of exploiting different UAV systems with different payloads and configurations in a range of conditions.

Armed Forces Personnel Policies

Lord Merlyn-Rees: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish the Armed Forces overarching personnel strategy main document.

Lord Bach: We are publishing today the new Armed Force overarching personnel strategy (AFOPS) main document.
	The AFOPS provides a clear sense of direction for Armed Forces personnel policies. It does so by providing a framework of five strategic themes and some 28 personnel strategic guidelines. These cover the full spectrum of the service personnel policy agenda. The main document also highlights the challenges we will face in attracting and retaining our people for the future.
	AFOPS is intended to deliver real and tangible effect. The new main document looks at the achievements of the past two or so years relating to service personnel and further lays out the actions which will be taken forward in the most critical areas during the next two years.
	We have placed copies of the document in the Library of the House.

Armed Forces Personnel Policies

Lord Merlyn-Rees: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made with the appraisal of initial training of recruits across the armed services.

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr Ingram) announced on 17 October 2002 (Official Report, col. 571) in another place that we had commissioned an appraisal of the initial training of recruits across the armed services and we undertook to publish findings. This appraisal was conducted by two senior officers from outside the personnel area and reported to Ministers. The leader of the study was given a wide-ranging remit and freedom to pursue the study.
	Overall, the appraisal concluded that the department can have considerable confidence in the initial training system. It is administered and staffed by professional men and women with a strong sense of duty and purpose who have proved consistently successful in providing highly effective training for 23,000 recruits a year. Two areas were judged to need addressing. First, the department as a responsible employer needs to continue to ensure that its young people are managed proficiently, treated fairly and given appropriate levels of professional and personal support. Second, the department requires more rigorous assurance mechanisms to provide regular monitoring, to expose risk and to promote best practice. The appraisal concluded that an assurance authority should be established outside the single-service chains of command. Some of these proposals will require extra investment.
	We are today placing in the Library of the House a copy of the appraisal, together with a departmental action plan responding to all of the recommendations and, where action is not already in hand or planned, assigning responsibility for examining the recommendation and taking it forward. The report is also available on the website: www.mod.uk.

Palace of Westminster Visitor Centre

Lord Lea of Crondall: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether he would provide an update on discussions about a new visitor centre in Westminster Hall, with particular reference to the impact on the CPA and IPU offices; and whether he will make available documentation relating to this matter.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: The proposal to establish a new visitor centre is under discussion by domestic committees of both Houses, although I can answer only for the House of Lords. The proposal was considered by the Information Commitee on 8 January and by the Administration and Works Committee on 21 January. Both committees felt strongly that visitor facilities should be located within the Palace and that a location contiguous to Westminster Hall would be the best option. However, the committees were fully aware of the consequences of losing the W Rooms and of the potential impact on the CPA and IPU. The Administration and Works Committee therefore recommended that the House of Lords should give its backing to the scheme "only on condition that satisfactory alternative accommodation was found within the Palace, and that the Committee and those concerned were given an opportunity to examine the alternative before giving final agreement". It is for the authorities of the House of Commons to find such alternative accommodation,and we await the results of their deliberations. In the meantime, the House Committee will consider the conclusions of the Information and Administration and Works Committees on 4 March.
	A copy of the Administration and Works Committee papers has been placed in the Library.

Asylum Claims by Post

Lord Acton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to end asylum claims by post.

Lord Filkin: In July 2000 we announced that we would not be recording postal claims for asylum from persons living in any of the London boroughs and that they would be required to attend for screening before their claim was recorded and processed. Postal applications have also not been accepted in other parts of the country and alternative screening arrangements have been established. Postal claims have, however, continued to be made from some parts of the country: in 2001–02 they accounted for 7 per cent of all asylum claims, and so far in 2002–03 they have accounted for 8.9 per cent.
	As from 8 February, anyone wishing to make an asylum claim will need to do so in person, and postal applications for asylum will no longer be accepted. We expect individuals to make their claim at a port of entry, where they will be screened and any request for support will be considered. Where a person in-country writes in by post, their purported claim will not be recorded. They will instead be advised to apply in person at Croydon or Liverpool. In the very exceptional case where a person is genuinely unable to attend one of these sites, alternative arrangements will be made to ensure that person can be screened and their claim processed.
	This change is part of our ongoing strategy to tighten up management of the asylum system.

Unfounded Asylum Applications

Lord Acton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What measures they intend to take to prevent people recognised as refugees elsewhere in Europe from coming to the United Kingdom and making unfounded asylum applications using false identities.

Lord Filkin: The Government are fully committed to maintaining effective immigration control and ensuring that access to the asylum process is restricted to those who are in need of protection, as demonstrated by the series of fundamental reforms to the immigration, asylum and nationality system over the past 12 months.
	Intelligence has shown that an increasing number of people who have been accepted as refugees elsewhere in the world are coming to the United Kingdom and making asylum applications in false identities. This undermines the integrity of the asylum process, places an unacceptable burden on the system and diverts valuable resources from those in genuine need. This abuse of the system is made easier as under the provisions of the Council of Europe Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees the holders of refugee travel documents issued by some 21 countries may travel to the United Kingdom without a visa. We have therefore decided to suspend the operation of that agreement. This will mean that from 00.01 hours on Tuesday 11 February all holders of refugee travel documents will require a visa before coming to the United Kingdom.
	This measure will bring the holders of refugee documents issued by the 21 countries into line with those who hold refugee documents issued by all other countries. This change will not prevent refugees who are settled in other countries and who genuinely wish to visit the United Kingdom from doing so. They will simply be required to obtain a visa before coming here. What it will do is act as a deterrent to those whose sole purpose in coming to the United Kingdom is to abuse our asylum system.

NHS Foundation Trusts

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 13 January (WA 35), what they estimate to be the costs of the independent regulator during 2003–04 and 2004–05 based on the powers and duties set out in A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts and on the basis that the number of successful applicants for National Health Service trust status in October 2003 is (a) 5, (b) 10 and (c) 20.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The costs of the independent regulator have not yet been estimated on this basis.

NHS Foundation Trusts

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it would be possible under existing legislation for (a) the Secretary of State, (b) strategic health authorities, (c) primary care trusts or (d) other bodies within the National Health Service to guarantee the borrowings of National Health Service foundation trusts or whether specific legislative powers would need to be taken in the legislation enabling the creation of National Health Service foundation trusts.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The regime for managing financial failure will safeguard the Secretary of State for Health's overriding priority—that National Health Service patients continue to have access to the healthcare they need, free at the point of delivery. The regime will not underwrite institutions that have failed to deliver under the terms of their service agreements and/or licence. There are no plans to introduce legislation on this matter.

NHS Foundation Trusts

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have received any preliminary applications from National Health Service trusts to become National Health Service foundation trusts.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Following publication of A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts on 11 December 2002, applications to become NHS Foundation Trusts have been invited from acute and specialist National Health Service trusts that achieved three-star status in the NHS performance ratings published in July 2002. The application process has now begun and the closing date for preliminary applications is 28 February 2003.

NHS Foundation Trusts

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 14 January (WA 41), whether the practical support envisaged for the governance arrangements of National Health Service foundation trusts will include direct financial support; and whether that support will extend to both the initial creation of the new governance arrangements and to their ongoing administration.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The policy on financial support for second stage applications for NHS foundation trusts is set out in paragraphs 7.13 and 7.14 of A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts.

NHS Foundation Trusts

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 14 January (WA 33), whether a National Health Service foundation trust will be free to retain the proceeds of disposal of an asset indefinitely until the regulator is satisfied that the use of those proceeds would be used to further its public interest mandate.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The policy on the disposal of assets is set out in paragraphs 3.18 and 3.19 in A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts. The consent of the regulator will be required prior to any proposed disposal of regulated assets.

NHS Foundation Trusts

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What would be the consequences for a National Health Service foundation trust of its borrowing limit being reduced as part of its annual review if the reduced limit was less than (a) its actual borrowing at that time; or (b) its expected borrowings in the light of existing commitments for capital or revenue expenditure.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Arrangements for the Prudential Code for NHS Foundation Trusts are set out in paragraph 5.17 of A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts. Under (a) the NHS foundation trust would not be able to enter into any new borrowing arrangements until its total borrowing fell within its new prudential limits. Under (b) investment plans that required future borrowing have to be deferred until it was prudent to do so.

NHS Foundation Trusts

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 14 January (WA 41), what statutory requirements will apply to the election of non-executive directors and chairs of the management boards of National Health Service foundation trusts.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The position is set out in paragraph 2.39 of A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts. Details will be set out in forthcoming legislation.

NHS Foundation Trusts

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 15 January (WA 45), under what legislative authority financial support will be given to applicants for National Health Service foundation status prior to the passing of legislation allowing the creation of National Health Service foundation trusts.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The first wave of NHS foundation trust applicants have been invited from acute and specialist National Health Service trusts that achieved three-star status in the NHS performance ratings published in July 2002. Powers set out in the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 (Schedule 3, paragraph 5A) enable the Secretary of State for Health to make a payment to an NHS trust if he considers it appropriate to do so.

Strategic Health Authorities: Mutual Fund

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 6 November 2002 (WA 114), whether the National Health Service Bank has yet agreed terms and conditions and amounts for individual health service bodies in respect of the £100 million made available to the three strategic health authorities (Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire; Surrey and Sussex; and Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire); and, if so, whether they will publish those details.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The £100 million mutual fund for 2002–03 has been made available in grant form to the strategic health authorities. The strategic health authorities are responsible for agreeing amounts for individual primary care trusts/National Health Service trusts.

Strategic Health Authorities: Mutual Fund

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 6 November 2002 (WA 114), whether the National Health Service Bank has made available any amounts beyond those set out in the Answer; and, if so, whether they will publish details of those amounts.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No further amounts have been made available beyond those set out in the earlier answer.

Strategic Health Authorities: Mutual Fund

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 6 November 2002 (WA 114), whether they have yet decided upon the legal form and management arrangements for the National Health Service Bank; and, if so, whether they will publish those details and state when they are expected to take effect.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: For 2003–04 the shadow bank will continue to be overseen by four strategic health authority chief executives.
	The legal form and management arrangements beyond 2003–04 are still under consideration.

NHS: Independent Reconfiguration Panel

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 16 December 2002 (WA 72–3), what selection procedures were followed before the appointment of the Independent Reconfiguration Panel chairman by the Secretary of State; and, in particular, whether the National Health Service Appointments Commission was involved.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Independent Reconfiguration Panel Chair, Dr Peter Barrett, was appointed by the Secretary of State for Health from a shortlist of candidates drawn up for his consideration. The appointment was announced on 22 August 2001. The National Health Service Appointments Commission was not involved as the commission did not at that time cover appointments to either public sector working groups or non-departmental public bodies.

NHS: Independent Reconfiguration Panel

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish the names and expertise of the members of the Independent Reconfiguration Panel; and what appointment procedures were followed.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Members of the Independent Reconfiguration Panel are being appointed in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies.
	We will be announcing the membership shortly.

Health Professions Council

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Before the Privy Council considers the Health Professions Council's proposed rules, whether they consider it satisfactory that no subsections are proposed for chiropody and podiatry; and whether they consider that in these cases profession-specific modalities of care should be distinguished; and
	Whether they consider the Health Professions Council's proposed rules for its register, as they affect titles, should, in the case of chiropody and podiatry, allow for significant differences in the qualifications, knowledge, clinical expertise and experience of registered practitioners, so as to enable the public to differentiate between them.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The aim of registration is to assure the public of the competence of healthcare professionals and, when necessary, to protect them. The Health Professions Council consulted about which titles should be protected by law and has undertaken extensive market research to understand the public's perception of titles currently in use by health professionals. The HPC's decision to propose the protection of both chiropodist and podiatrist reflect the general public perception that these titles are used interchangeably. The HPC believes that the introduction of large numbers of subsections would be confusing and unnecessary. It is for the HPC to propose and the Privy Council to determine the protected titles that will be associated with the parts and subsections of the Health Professions Register.

Health Professions Council

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they accept that transitional entrants to the register under the Health Professions Council's proposed "three out of five years" rule should be provided with the additional training required to meet minimum proficiency within a two-year period; and what training they believe will be necessary.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is for the Health Professions Council to decide on standards for proficiency to be attained by all new entrants to the register. Training requirements may vary for individual applicants depending on their current proficiency.

Health Professions Council

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How the Health Professions Council's proposal for its key decision document that "even where an applicant does not meet the 'three out of five years' rule, they may still be eligible for registration" can be reconciled with the stipulation in the statutory order of a "three out of the previous five years" rule; and whether such a relaxation of the statutory order is in the public interest.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Health Professions Order is clear that an applicant may be registered under the transitional provisions in the statutory order by either satisfying the three out of five years rule or by undergoing such additional training and experience that will satisfy the council that the correct standard of proficiency for admission to the relevant part of the register has been attained.

Health Professions Council

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of the undertakings given by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in regard to Professional Advisory Committees on 13 December 2001 (HL Deb, col. 1526), they consider that ad hoc time-and-task-limited professional liaison groups, as proposed by the Health Professions Council, match the spirit of those undertakings.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: On 13 December 2001 I said that the council may set up any other committees and panels that it needs. The Health Professions Order 2001 allows the council to set up professional advisory committees to advise the council or its statutory committees on matters affecting relevant professions. It is for the HPC to decide how best to obtain the necessary advice and also the mechanism for supplying it. HPC has decided to propose professional liaison groups on the basis of widespread support obtained during consultation.

Health Professions Council

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in connection with the Health Professions Council's proposed rules, they are satisfied that the statutory order's section on the transitional arrangements period is being adhered to.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Health Professions Council has published its key decisions document on its proposals which it will put before the Privy Council. There is no reason to believe that transitional arrangements within the Health Professions Order are not being adhered to.

NHS Trusts: Retained Deficits

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What information covering periods since the last audited accounts they or strategic health authorities hold about the retained deficits of National Health Service trusts.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Unaudited information on the in-year income and expenditure position of National Health Service trusts is collected centrally by the Department of Health. We have no plans to publish unaudited information.

NHS Trusts: Retained Deficits

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 27 January (WA 134), for each of the National Health Service trusts listed in the answer, what its cumulative surplus or deficit was at 31 March 2001 and at 31 March 2002.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The information requested is in the following table.
	
		Income and Expenditure Reserve (Cumulative Surplus/Deficit))
		
			 NHS Trusts with retained deficit in 2001–2002 2001–02 £000s 2000–01 £000's 
			 Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust (5,991) (4,882) 
			 Avon and Wiltshire MHP NHS Trust (1,643) 590 
			 Bedford Hospitals NHS Trust (843) 2,306 
			 Bedfordshire and Luton Community NHS Trust (1,357) (324) 
			 Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull Trust 963 964 
			 Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust 2,208 3,599 
			 Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust 112 1,248 
			 Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust (3,823) (2,747) 
			 Dorset Health Care NHS Trust 2,494 319 
			 East Berkshire Community Health Trust 7,861 8,902 
			 Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust (377) (47) 
			 Gloucestershire Ambulance Services NHS Trust 285 244 
			 Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust 671 891 
			 Hounslow and Spelthorne Community and Mental Health Trust (189) 193 
			 Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust (1,880) (1,053) 
			 Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust 132 (238) 
			 Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust 2,383 2,470 
			 Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (3,874) 195 
			 Mid Sussex NHS Trust (1,601) (202) 
			 N Essex Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust (1,294)  
			 New Possibilities NHS Trust 837 630 
			 North Bristol NHS Trust (2,235) 1,750 
			 North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust (999) (406) 
			 North West Anglia Health Care NHS Trust (94) (213) 
			 Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust 1,876 2,100 
			 Nuffield Orthopaedic NHS Trust (2,753) (2,747) 
			 Portsmouth Health Care NHS Trust 6,954 305 
			 Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust 3,973 4,569 
			 Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust (633) 16 
			 Riverside Community Healthcare NHS Trust 3,569 3,679 
			 Royal Berkshire Ambulance Service Trust 965 689 
			 Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (12,434) (8,441) 
			 Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust 392 788 
			 Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust 3,321 3,252 
			 Royal West Sussex NHS Trust (4,432) (2,710) 
			 Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust (3,498) (1,284) 
			 South Warwickshire Combined NHS Trust (577) 127 
			 Southampton Community Health Services Trust (1,090) (746) 
			 Southampton University Hosps NHS Trust 2,355 2,405 
			 Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust 507 760 
			 Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust (6,122) (5,985) 
			 Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust (290) 630 
			 Sussex Weald and Downs NHS Trust (3,380) (1,594) 
			 The Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust 2,743 3,075 
			 United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust 3,874 8,933 
			 West Hampshire NHS Trust (12)  
			 West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust (11,049) 17 
			 West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust 2,898 3,003 
			 Weston Area Health NHS Trust 1,520 1,955 
			 Worthing Priority Care Services Trust (445) 146 
			 Total (20,022) 27,191 
		
	
	Source:
	NHS Trust Audited Summarisation Schedules 2000–2001 and 2001–2002

Cannabis

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether in view of the mental and physical health problems associated with cannabis use, has the Department of Health made any representations to the Home Office in connection with the policies of de-classifying cannabis to class B and of reduced enforcement activity by the police.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Department of Health provides support to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), which considered the appropriate classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act and which recommended to the Home Secretary that cannabis should be reclassified. The department assisted the ACMD and ensured up-to-date research on health problems associated with cannabis was made available to the Home Office. The Government consider that cannabis is a harmful drug and that its possession should remain illegal.
	Police enforcement activity is not an issue on which it would be appropriate for the department to make representations to the Home Office.

CBRN Incidents: NHS Guidance in the North West

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What guidance have general practitioners, hospital doctors, accident and emergency staff and other health care professionals in the North West of England received regarding patient treatment in the event of a major biological, chemical or nuclear incident; and what mechanisms are in place to enable these healthcare professionals to implement any such guidance

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Since September 11 2001, National Health Service preparations have been stepped up to ensure we are as prepared as we can be in responding to a range of possible new threats such as the deliberate release of chemical or biological agents or incidents associated with radiological or nuclear hazards.
	The NHS has increased its preparedness by stockpiling medical equipment, antidotes, antibiotics and vaccines. The Department of Health has issued specific guidance to the NHS on the public health response to the deliberate release of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) incidents, mass decontamination and mass casualties. A new protective suit has been issued for use by ambulance and accident and emergency staff working on the decontamination of patients.
	The Department of Health has made available through the emergency planning section of its website www.doh.gov.uk/epcu a comprehensive package of guidance for clinicians on dealing with the consequences of deliberate release. This information is regularly updated. The website contains a link to the Public Health Laboratory Service website www.phls.org.uk which provides additional clinical and other information.
	In the North West arrangements for providing effective specialist advice to NHS responders (which include not only hospital and ambulance staff but also general practitioners, community nurses, health visitors, mental health services and pharmacists) are co-ordinated through the Regional Public Health Network, led by the Regional Director of Public Health.
	The network includes a regional health emergency planning team, regional epidemiologists and three zonal health protection units (HPUs), each with specialist staff including consultants in communicable disease control and health emergency planning officers, and is available to NHS responders on a 24-hour basis.
	HPUs are in regular contact with primary care trusts, acute hospital trusts and strategic health authorities in the region providing advice on best practice in response to CBRN incidents, arranging training and exercising of plans and emergency equipment and providing specialist health input as necessary during a major incident.
	At the regional level, the health emergency planning team keeps under review all hospital, ambulance service and PCT major incident plans to ensure that they are up to date and that best practice is shared across the region.

Health Protection Agency

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to publish the results of the consultation into the creation of the health protection agency.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We received over 200 written responses to the consultation paper on the Health Protection Agency (HPA). Our decision to proceed with the agency's creation, first as a special health authority and subsequently as a non-departmental public body, takes account of the widespread support for establishing the agency.
	Because the consultation paper set out proposals for creating the HPA by regulatory reform order, it did not simply invite views on general principles but made relatively detailed proposals about the nature of the legislation needed. Many of the responses similarly made detailed points. We are continuing to consider these points in deciding on the details of the legislation to establish the agency. We aim to publish a report on the consultation exercise at the same time as our proposals for changes to primary legislation, since at that stage we shall best be able to show how we have taken into account the detailed points made.
	In the meantime, copies of the responses themselves (except where respondents requested otherwise) are available from the Department of Health.

Health Protection Agency

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they plan to ensure that the agencies responsible for responding to any acts of bioterrorism are not prevented from responding by work involved in the preparation for establishing the health protection agency.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We intend that the health protection agency (HPA) will be responsible for a number of functions currently performed by a number of different bodies. The amalgamation of these responsibilities into a single agency is designed to strengthen specialist support for health protection and health emergency planning.
	We are working closely with the various agencies concerned to ensure that the transfer of responsibilities to the HPA goes smoothly.

Health Protection Agency

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they plan to ensure that the performance of the agencies responsible for responding to any acts of bioterrorism will not be affected by any confusion of responsibilities arising from the creation of the health protection agency.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Our proposals for the health protection agency (HPA) offer a coherent, co-ordinated and robust approach that will ensure better public health security. We intend that from 1 April 2003 the HPA will support the United Kingdom Government in the same way as the bodies whose responsibilities we propose should transfer to it on that date currently do. The amalgamation of the bodies into a single agency is designed to strengthen specialist support for health protection and health emergency planning.

Health Protection Agency

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend to ensure the continuance of the current work done by the Public Health Laboratory Service on pneumococcal disease when the laboratory network is separated from the other functions in the health protection agency.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: All work currently undertaken by Public Health Laboratory Service Laboratories on pneumococcal disease will continue under the direction of the new health protection agency.

Health Protection Agency

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When a decision will be made about the terms and conditions to be offered to new recruits in the health protection agency after 1 April 2003.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Subject to legislation, the health protection agency (HPA) will be established as a special health authority on 1 April 2003, and new staff employed by the HPA as from 1 April will commence employment on National Health Service terms and conditions using local pay and grading arrangements.

Age-related Macular Degeneration

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assessment they have made of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence final appraisal determination of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration; and what action they will be taking; and
	How many patients with classic, with no occult, subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) will receive treatment as recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the final appraisal determination of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration; and
	How many patients with predominantly classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) will receive treatment as part of the clinical studies recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the final appraisal determination of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration; and
	How many patients with predominantly classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) will not receive treatment as part of the clinical studies recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the final appraisal determination of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration; and
	Whether they will fund the clinical studies recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the final appraisal determination of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration; and what assessment they have made of the cost of these studies; and
	Whether they will continue to fund treatment for patients with predominantly classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) who currently receive treatment with photodynamic therapy but who may be excluded from treatment on the basis of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's final appraisal determination of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is carrying out an appraisal of photodynamic therapy as a treatment for age related macular degeneration. It has not yet published any guidance to the National Health Service on this topic. NICE prepared its final appraisal determination on photodynamic therapy and circulated it to consultees on 16 January. We understand this document has been appealed against. NICE will now consider any appeals before publishing its final guidance.

Obesity

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to introduce national guidelines for the management of obesity in addition to those which form part of the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease and Diabetes.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Following publication of the Government's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food, the Department of Health is leading on developing a cross-government food and health action plan. It will pull together all of the issues on diet and nutrition—of direct relevance to the prevention and management of obesity.
	The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has already issued national guidance on the anti-obesity drugs orlistat and sibutramine, treatment with which should be accompanied by appropriate advice on diet, activity and behavioural strategies. NICE has also recently issued guidance on surgery to aid weight reduction for people with morbid obesity.
	The Department of Health has also published a National Quality Assurance Framework for exercise referral systems, offering guidance to primary care and fitness professionals who work together to offer tailored exercise and physical activity programmes to patients.
	The Department of Health has supported the development of a recently published guidance for professionals in primary care on weight management in children and adolescents, produced by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and National Obesity Forum. We are also funding research on family-based treatment for obese children, which will include resources for health professionals.
	Other wider initiatives include the evidence-based five-a-day handbook to support staff in primary care trusts and other organisations to establish community-wide initiatives to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. The Health Development Agency is also providing a report setting out the evidence base for the prevention and treatment of overweight and obesity and the maintenance of weight loss.

NHS: Clinical Negligence Expenditure

Viscount Goschen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What has been the annual cost to the National Health Service of insuring against personal injury claims over the past five years.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The National Audit Office summarised accounts for all clinical negligence expenditure over the last five years, which includes personal injury costs, are as follows:
	
		
			 Year In Year Expenditure 
			 1996–97 £235 million 
			 1997–98 £144 million 
			 1998–99 £221 million 
			 1999–2000 £373 million 
			 2000–01 £415 million

Culture Media Production

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they plan to stabilise culture media production in the Public Health Laboratory Service after the creation of the health protection agency.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We intend that the Public Health Laboratory Service will continue to be responsible for culture media production and supply after the health protection agency is created.
	The arrangements for this function, which are still under discussion, will ensure a continued supply of culture media so as to support the continued United Kingdom Accreditation Service accreditation status of the current PHLS laboratories which it supplies.

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill: Regulatory Impact Assessment

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the light of the statement in paragraph 58 of the explanatory notes to the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill where on the Department of Health's website may the regulatory impact assessment for the Bill be found; and
	Whether they will place a copy of the regulatory impact assessment for the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill in the Library of the House.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The regulatory impact assessment for the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Bill can now be found on the delayed discharge page of the departmental website. It was previously located in the section for past consultations as an attachment to the consultation on the Bill. A copy of this document has also been placed in the Library.

NHS Trusts: Annual Accounts

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 27 January (WA 133), whether the Department of Health holds copies of the annual audited accounts of National Health Service trusts for 2001–02 and (a) if so, why they will not place copies in the Library of the House; or (b) if not, how the Department of Health prepares summarised accounts of the National Health Service in accordance with Section 98 of the National Health Service Act 1977.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Department of Health does not routinely hold printed or electronic copies of audited annual accounts of National Health Service trusts.
	The department receives electronic submissions of audited summarisation schedules from all trusts, which are loaded in a database and used to prepare the summarised accounts.
	Annual accounts can be obtained directly from trusts, and, as it would entail the production of approximately 14,000 pages, it is not intended to place copies in the Library.

National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, as part of the proposed national alcohol harm reduction strategy, they will take steps to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed at social events hosted by public-sector organisations.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government are committed to implementing the national alcohol harm reduction strategy by 2004. The strategy will be prepared by the Strategy Unit in the Cabinet Office, which will consider a wide range of of issues, including the impact of alcohol misuse in a range of differing workplace environments. The strategy will be published in summer 2003.

Irish and Ulster-Scots Interests

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 7 January (WA 171) concerning the Linguistic Diversity Branch of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL), on what projects or conferences DCAL has co-operated with the University of Ulster which would increase awareness of Ulster-Scots heritage and language.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer I gave to Question HL1120 on 6 February 2003. (WA 43).

Irish and Ulster-Scots Interests

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 7 January (WA171) concerning the Linguistic Diversity Branch of the Department of Culture Arts and Leisure (DCAL), on what projects or conferences DCAL has co-operated with Queen's University, Belfast, which would increase awareness of the Irish language.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I refer the noble Lord to my Answer I gave to Question HL1121 on 6 February 2003. (WA 43).

Irish and Ulster-Scots Interests

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 7 January 2003 (WA 171), upon which projects or conferences the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has co-operated with the Placenames Project of Northern Ireland which would increase awareness of Ulster-Scots heritage and language.
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 7 January 2003 (WA171), on what projects or conferences the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has co-operated with the Placenames Project of Northern Ireland which would increase awareness of the Irish language.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Northern Ireland Place-Names Project Advisory Board/Steering Committee holds three meetings each year. Representatives from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) attended the meetings held on 4 April 2001, 24 September 2001, 27 March 2002 and, most recently, 14 October 2002.
	In January 2002 the Celebrating Ulster's Townland's exhibition was on display in DCAL's reception. The exhibition was put together by the Northern Ireland Place-names Project.
	The meetings and the exhibition have provided the opportunity to promote awareness of Irish and Ulster-Scots interests in relation to placenames and signage issues.

Irish and Ulster-Scots Interests

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure was notified about the proposed appointments of four-and-a-half staff for the Ulster Scots Agency; and whether there has been any delay to these appointments.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I refer the noble Lord to my previous Answers on 20 January 2003 (WA 81) and 11 December 2002 (WA 37).

Irish and Ulster-Scots Interests

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 7 January (WA 171), on what projects or conferences the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has co-operated with the European Centre for Minority Issues which would increase awareness of Ulster-Scots heritage and language.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer given to Question HL 1119 on 6 February 2003 (WA 43).

Irish and Ulster-Scots Interests

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Privy Seal on 9 December (WA 2) and 20 January (WA 81), whether there are officials among the administrative staff of the Linguistic Diversity Branch of the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure with expertise in Irish language and in Ulster-Scots language and culture; and, if so, how many of each.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I refer the noble Lord to my previous Answers on 6 November (WA 123), 9 December 2002 (WA 2) and 20 January 2003 (WA 81).

Northern Ireland Ambulance Service

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 15 January (WA 48) concerning the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, whether the Answer means that the press release of 3 July was correct or incorrect; and if the latter, why.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The press release correctly identified all the HPSS elements of the reinvestment and reform initiative package announced by the First and Deputy First Ministers.

Waterways Ireland: Capital Projects

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 7 January (WA 173), what were the capital projects recently completed by Waterways Ireland at Limerick Harbour, Boyle Harbour, Ballinasloe Harbour, Ballyleague in County Roscommon, Shannonbridge in County Offaly and at Scarriff in County Clare; in each case who were the contractors; and how much each is estimated to cost

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Details of the capital works completed are as follows:
	1. Limerick Harbour
	The main components of the scheme to extend the Shannon Navigation into Limerick City were a 260m long weir, the restoration of the lock gates at Sarsfield Lock and the provision of three sets of floating moorings at George's Quay, Custom House Quay and Arthur's Quay. The effect of the scheme is greatly to increase navigational access and, for the first time, to allow mooring in the heart of the city.
	Limerick City Council acted as agents for Waterways Ireland, which had no direct involvement in the running of the scheme. The main contractor was Uniform Construction, and Waterways Ireland's contribution was Stg £1.85 million. The scheme officially opened on 20 July 2001.
	2. Boyle Harbour
	At Boyle, Co. Roscommon, an extension to the navigation was opened to traffic on 25 May 2001. This allows boat traffic to come within easy reach of the town via a new 1250m canal coming off the Boyle river, passing under the recently opened Curlews by-pass road and terminating at a harbour with accommodation for 27 vessels and complete with fully equipped service block, car park and refuse disposal facility. The scheme was mainly carried out by Waterways Ireland's own direct labour force, with specialist contractors being engaged for certain aspects as follows:
	The installation of a slurry wall was contracted to Pearse-Bachy, the building of the harbour walls to Coffey Construction and the building of a service block to T.H. Construction. The total cost of the scheme was Stg £2.2 million.
	3. Ballinasloe
	The Ballinasloe, Co. Galway, scheme, which terminates at a harbour close to the town, facilitates navigation along the Suck river for 16km from the main river Shannon. The work included the dredging of 5km of channel, the provision of a lock at Pollboy, the rehabilitation of a fishery and the excavation of a site for the harbour. The harbour, consisting of floating moorings, caters for 24 vessels and is fully equipped with a service block, water and lighting. The scheme was completed mainly using Waterways Ireland's own direct labour workforce, with the floating moorings supplied by Bancon Marina Systems Ltd. It was opened to boat traffic on 25 May, 2001 and cost Stg £1.75 million.
	My previous Answer clearly indicated that work at Ballyleague, Shannonbridge and Scarriff is not yet completed.

Northern Ireland Civil Service

Lord Rogan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 14 January (WA 27), whether they will define the differences between the Home Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code and the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Both the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commissioners in respect of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Civil Service Commissioners in respect of the Home Civil Service are required by their respective Orders in Council to uphold the principle of selection for appointment on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. In further meeting the requirements of the Orders in Council, their respective recruitment codes are concerned both with the interpretation and application of that principle and also the limited range of circumstances where the commissioners permit exceptions to the recruitment principle.
	The detailed contents of the recruitment codes are a matter for the commissioners. I understand, however, that the differences in format and processes between the two codes (which are available on the commissioners' websites at www.nicscommissioners.org and www.civilservicecommissioners.gov.uk) are a result of the different scales of operation covered by the two commissioner bodies.

Northern Ireland Civil Service

Lord Rogan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 12 December 2002 (WA 48), what are the local arrangements for security vetting of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The focus of national security vetting arrangements for members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service has always been particular to the circumstances of Northern Ireland. These arrangements have accordingly differed from those in place in respect of the Home Civil Service and may not have been, for example, as thorough regarding threats to national security unrelated to Irish terrorism. The review announced by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 12 December will consider whether changes are now needed to the Northern Ireland Civil Service arrangements to take account of changed circumstances.

Holywood, Co. Down: Conservation

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Environment and Heritage Service of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment was consulted about the potential effect the housing development at 10–20 Bangor Road, Holywood, County Down, would have on the Priory Church and the listed houses at Tudor Park; and, if so, what was that advice.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Planning Service takes account of a number of factors when considering planning applications and consults the Environment and Heritage Service on any planning applications which may affect a listed building or its setting.
	Following consideration of a range of issues in relation to the development at 10–20 Bangor Road, Holywood, the Planning Service considered that it was not necessary to consult with the Environment and Heritage Service. The issues considered included the separation distances of over 100 metres between the development site and both the Priory and the listed houses at Tudor Oaks, the intervening development and the lack of visual relationship between the properties referred to and the proposed development site.

Holywood, Co. Down: Conservation

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they have taken to designate a conservation area in Holywood, Co. Down; and, if none, why not.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Department of the Environment has received numerous requests from Holywood Conservation Group and other interested parties seeking conservation area status for areas within Holywood. The previous Minister and departmental officials have met with the group to discuss this issue and explain the department's position.
	Holywood falls within the remit of the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan. As part of the plan preparation process, the department has appointed consultants to advise on those locations within the Down Metropolitan Area, including Holywood, which merit special planning protection by reason of their quality and character of the built environment. The draft plan, which is programmed to be published in September 2003, will present the department's proposals. The plan process cannot designate conservation areas as designation is a separate statutory process. However, it will identify areas of townscape character (ATC). Such ATCs can be subsequently considered for designation as conservation areas under the separate statutory process provided by Article 50 of the Planning (NI) Order 1991 where they are of sufficient quality to merit conservation area status.
	Downpatrick Divisional Planning Office undertook to carry out preparatory work to shorten the timescale of conservation area designation if this is to be adopted as an appropriate way forward for Holywood. To this end, the conservation officer from this office has met the Holywood Conservation Group. The group is also in the process of producing a booklet on the issue to inform the debate.

Northern Ireland: Protection of the Historic Environment

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they have taken to protect unlisted buildings in Northern Ireland which are valued by residents as contributing to the character of an area; whether consideration has been given to the removal of VAT on building renovation in contrast to new building work; and whether the increased demands on concentrated development within settlements will result in a change in the criteria for listed buildings.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Government are aware of recent public disquiet over the loss or threatened loss by demolition of a number of buildings in Northern Ireland which, while not statutorily listed, were or are valued by local residents because of their age and character and sometimes their associations with noted public figures from Northern Ireland. While such buildings situated outside conservation areas, where control of demolition exists, may not necessarily merit listing, their potential loss often causes great concern to residents. The draft Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, currently before Parliament, which contains provisions to extend control over the demolition of buildings to areas of townscape character, will go some way to allay these concerns.
	The order has other provisions in relation to the protection of the historic environment, including higher penalties, possibly involving custodial sentences, for unauthorised demolition of listed buildings and the introduction to Northern Ireland of building preservation notices (i.e. spot listing) to enable the department to respond quickly to protect buildings at risk.
	Strengthened enforcement powers proposed in the order will also apply to listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas and will enable the department to take speedier and more effective action against unauthorised works to the historic environment.
	Development plans, formulated as part of the current development plan programme, may contain proposals for new or extended conservation areas or further areas of townscape character.
	As regards the removal of VAT on building renovation, the UK maintains its zero rates under long-standing formal agreements with our European partners. Under these agreements, we cannot extend our existing zero rates or introduce any new ones. It is therefore not possible to introduce a zero rate for building renovations.
	The department has authority to list buildings of special architectural or historic interest under the Planning (NI) Order 1991 and the criteria for such listing are contained in Annex C (the Selection of Listed Buildings) of Planning Policy Statement 6, Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage. The criteria for listing buildings in Northern Ireland are comparable with those used across the UK. The department does not envisage a change in these criteria as a result of increased demands on concentrated development within settlements.

Irish Agency

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 20 January (WA 80), on what dates the necessary approvals were received from the appropriate departments for the two posts in the Irish Agency: and what were those departments.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I refer the noble Lord to my Answer on 6 November 2002 (WA 120) (HL6243).
	The sponsor departments (Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs) approved the paper on 18 September 2002.
	The finance departments informed the sponsor departments on 2 October 2002 of their approval, subject to certain amendments. The amended paper was approved by the North/South Ministerial Council on 9 October 2002.

Northern Ireland Planning Service

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many conservation officers are employed by each planning service division in Northern Ireland.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Department of the Environment's Planning Service has seven conservation officers. These are spread by division as follows:
	
		
			  Number 
			 Ballymena 1 
			 Belfast 2 
			 Downpatrick 1 
			 Londonderry/Coleraine 2 
			 Omagh/Enniskillen 1

Waterways Ireland: Equality Scheme

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 22 January (WA 103) concerning Waterways Ireland, on what dates the North/South implementation bodies were consulted regarding equality; in what form; and which responded.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Waterways Ireland consulted the other North/South implementation bodies by letter dated 30 June 2000 enclosing a draft equality scheme for comment. No responses were received.

Lord Chancellor's Pension Scheme

Lord Tebbit: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their estimate of the capital value of the Lord Chancellor's pension scheme.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The capital value of a pension can be estimated in various ways. The figures stated in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, on 28 January (WA 142) can be taken as indicative of the current capital value of the Lord Chancellor's pension arrangements.

Senior Salaries Review Body

Baroness Goudie: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the 2003 report of the review body on senior salaries.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The 2003 report of the review body on senior salaries, which makes recommendations about the pay of the senior Civil Service, senior military personnel and the judiciary, was published on 6 February 2003. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries of the House.
	The main recommendations of the review body are:
	an increase from 1 April 2003 of 2.25 per cent to the pay ranges for each of the three Senior Civil Service pay bands below Permanent Secretary; a range of base pay awards from 0 to 9 per cent based on performance; a minimum bonus payment of 3 per cent or £2,500, whichever is the higher, for those making the greatest contribution; and an uplift to the Permanent Secretaries pay ranges resulting in a new range of £118,750 to £251,500.
	an across-the-board settlement of 2.75 per cent for the judiciary, in addition to 4.4 per cent which they will receive as the second and final stage of their 2002 award. The Lord Chief Justice will receive a further £10,000 in addition to this to redress slippage which has occured over recent years between his post (as the senior full-time serving judge) and that of the Cabinet Secretary (as Head of the Civil Service).
	an increase from 1 April 2003 of 2.25 per cent in the value of all points on the incremental pay scales for senior military officers.
	The Government have decided to accept these recommendations. Their cost will be met within existing departmental expenditure limits.
	Pay increases for Members of Parliament and Ministers are linked automatically to the increase in pay bands for the senior civil service. Their pay entitlement will therefore increase from 1 April 2003 by 2.25 per cent.